Keywords

8.1 Introduction

With the expansion of the field of positive psychology, there is increasing interest in the role of cultural variables in positive psychological functioning. Evidence suggests that western conceptualizations of positive psychology constructs may differ from those in non-Western contexts (Oishi & Gilbert, 2016). However, most studies have focused on differences between western and eastern cultures, and less is known about similarities and differences among western and other contexts, such as African contexts. This chapter reports on hope and flourishing among South African and Spanish adults, and examines correlates and mechanisms of these constructs, taking socio-demographic variables into account.

Research examining the applicability of positive psychological constructs from western cultures to other cultures, such as eastern cultures, are expanding. Specifically, the role of cultural differences in the relationships between constructs such as flourishing, well-being, hope, emotions, forgiveness, etc., are gaining attention. Diverse studies reported cultural differences in the assessments or perceived relevance of some of the main constructs of positive psychology like flourishing (Wȩziak-Białowolska et al., 2019), hope, life satisfaction, positive affect, and emotions (An et al., 2017; Hutz et al., 2014). Furthermore, cross-cultural research is also focussing on the possible effect of cultural differences in the relationship between some of those variables and flourishing, personal well-being or quality of life (Bernardo et al., 2018a, 2018b; Hutz et al., 2014).

The above brief review shows the increasing relevance of cross-cultural research in positive psychology; therefore, it seems relevant to engage in more cross-cultural comparative studies to broaden knowledge of the universal vs cultural value of theories, models and relationships of central elements of Positive Psychology. One of the constructs which has shown to be central to well-being is hope. Many authors have identified hope as a key resource in our lives because of its role in our mental and physical health, and in our well-being (Bailey et al., 2007; Scioli et al., 2016). However, most of the research has focused on the positive effect of hope on one of the elements of well-being, i.e. life satisfaction (Alarcon et al., 2013; Bailey et al., 2007; Du et al., 2015; Krafft et al., 2021; Peterson et al., 2007, among others) and less research has examined the relationship between hope and flourishing, which is another main element of well-being.

Considering the role of culture, some studies have shown that some aspects of hope are universal across cultures (Bernardo et al., 2018a, 2018b; Ling et al., 2016). However, although hope is relevant in all cultures, the conceptualization of hope, its central elements, and the sources or targets of hope would be different in different cultures (Bernardo, 2010). Due to the important role of hope and flourishing in our well-being, we considered it valuable to examine and understand possible cultural differences in the conceptualization and elements of hope and in its role in flourishing.

In this chapter we report a cross cultural comparison of hope between samples from a Mediterranean European country (Spain) and an African country with multicultural roots, including North European roots (South Africa). As previously indicated, there is a lack of comparative positive psychological research between European and African countries. The current study could therefore extend knowledge on similarities and differences in hope and flourishing in these two contexts. We also explore the possible cross-cultural differences in sources of hope. Finally, we analyze the possible differences and common aspects in the role of hope in flourishing in both countries.

8.2 Hope and Flourishing

Hope has been defined and conceptualized in several ways. Most of the theories agree in conceptualizing hope as a positive expectation about future outcomes (Krafft & Walker, 2018a; Krafft et al., 2019), but there are also several differences in the conceptualization and theoretical models of hope. In fact, there is not a single, unified conceptualization of hope, as some authors conceptualize hope as a multidimensional psychological construct (Dufault & Martocchio, 1985; Herth, 1992) others highlight hope as an emotion (Averill et al., 1990) while others conceptualize it as a cognitive mind-set (Snyder, 1994, 2000, 2002).

Despite those discrepancies, Snyder’s hope model and the dispositional hope scale (DHS) (Snyder et al., 1991) is one of the most widely used in research. It is consistently discussed in the literature on hope and its relationship with other variables, and it is used in measuring hope among different populations and in various languages (Bernardo, 2010; Lopez et al., 2003). In Snyder’s model, hope is seen as a motivational resource to plan and perform actions in order to achieve goals; it is like a cognitive evaluation by individuals of their ability to achieve their goals (Snyder, 1994). This involves various elements: goal setting, agency thoughts and pathways to achieve those goals (Snyder, 2000).

However, Snyder’s model has received some criticism regarding its lack of accounting for possible cultural differences, especially between western and eastern cultures, mainly about the role of other significant people such as family or even other significant spiritual beliefs as sources of hope (Bernardo, 2010). Another important criticism of this model concerns its excessive emphasis on the cognitive nature of hope, minimizing the role of the other elements of hope such as the emotional or spiritual components (Bruininks & Howington, 2018; Scioli et al., 2011).

Accordingly, another conceptualization and measurement of hope have been put forward. Krafft et al. (2019) developed the Perceived Hope Scale (PHS) in order to assess hope as it is perceived by ordinary people. These authors proposed a concise hope measure to “assess hope directly in order to gain access to individuals’ unfiltered judgment of their own level of hopefulness…” (Krafft et al., 2019, pp. 1597). Furthermore, the PHS aims to assess hope free of cognitive and spiritual bias, and could be used in different populations and cultures, as well as among people with different belief systems. In that sense, the Perceived Hope Scale (PHS) was designed in order to have a hope assessment scale that fulfil those requirements.

Despite the controversies and difficulties of its conceptualization and measure, there is no doubt that hope plays an important role in achieving positive outcomes in different fields such as academic, work, and social spheres, and it is also central to our well-being. Previous research has shown that hope is positively related to subjective well-being, specifically the hedonic elements such as life satisfaction (Bailey & Snyder, 2007; Diener & Chan, 2011; Rand et al., 2011, among others). However, other theories focus more on eudaimonic aspects of well-being, broadly referred to as psychological well-being (Ryff, 1995). Recent research suggests that there is considerable overlap among these facets of well-being and points to the need to integrate these two components in understanding well-being (Díaz et al., 2015; Disabato et al., 2016; Ryan & Deci, 2001, among others). More recent conceptualizations of psychological well-being propose a more integrated view of these two perspectives on well-being and define psychological well-being as a multidimensional construct composed by emotional elements—hedonic components like life satisfaction—and the eudaimonic component -as the optimal functioning and flourishing- (Kern et al., 2014).

The concept of human flourishing has its origins in antiquity, specifically in Aristotle who described flourishing as the ultimate end or goal of a good life, which he also referred to as “good spirit” (Levin, 2020). Flourishing has been related to the sense of purpose in life, hope, and many positive emotions like happiness (Gunderman, 2008), also with clear goals in life and positive emotions such as optimism (Keyes, 2007). In that sense, flourishing is about optimal psychological functioning, which includes positive relationships, feelings of competence, and meaning and purpose in life (Diener et al., 2010).

Concerning the relationship between hope and flourishing, some authors such as Cohn and Fredrickson (2009) pointed out that hope could be considered a part of the eudaimonic component of flourishing. However, as previously stated, while there is evidence of the association between hope and life satisfaction (Alarcon et al., 2013; Bailey & Snyder, 2007; Rand et al., 2011), less is known about the relationship between hope and flourishing.

The limited research has shown some evidence that hope is a major predictor of flourishing, above resilience (Munoz et al., 2020). In another study, Khodarahimi (2013) reported that high levels of hope were related to a sense of flourishing. This study also found evidence for the association between hope and flourishing with emotions. Specifically, higher levels of hope and flourishing were related to more positive emotions, and conversely, low levels of hope and flourishing were related with more negative emotions. These results are consistent with research suggesting that both variables, hope and flourishing, are related to life satisfaction (Diener & Chan, 2011; Gunderman, 2008; Keyes, 2007; Snyder et al., 1991, 1994, 2000). There is also some evidence about the mediating role of hope in the relationship between flourishing and fear of happiness (Belen et al., 2020).

These results show that it is important to explore the relationship between hope and flourishing in more depth, in order to better understand their dynamics in our well-being and fulfilment. Additionally, more research is needed to explore possible cultural differences in these relationships. Finally, we have to highlight that most existing studies have implemented Snyder’s hope measures, and more research is needed using other measures and conceptualizations of hope. In that sense, using a more comprehensive conceptualization of hope, namely perceived hope (Krafft et al., 2019) could be useful to understanding the dynamics of flourishing. Additionally, more research is required to confirm the cross-cultural applicability of the PHS.

8.3 Hope and Flourishing in Cross-Cultural Context

8.3.1 Cross-Cultural Research on Hope

Snyder’s Hope model (Snyder, 1994, 2002) has been widely applied to behavioural and psychological studies. The function of hope and its relationship to other personal variables and behaviour seems to be the same in different cultures (Chang & Banks, 2007). Most studies agree in the applicability and reliability of Snyder’s dispositional hope scale (DHS) and conclude that it has cross-cultural applicability (Chang & Banks, 2007; Flores-Lucas et al., 2018; Li et al., 2018). However, as we pointed out earlier, recent studies reported subtle cross-cultural differences in some of the components of hope, like in pathways (Li et al., 2018). Other studies, such as the one carried out by Tang (2019) among Chinese people in the United Kingdom, show that there are other factors, like certain cultural traits, that mediate the relationship between hope and agency development. Furthermore, cultural and social context elements mediate the role of hope in its effects on recovery (Matsuoka, 2015; Mattingly, 2010).

Probably one of the main critical reviews of Snyder’s Hope Model in relation to cultural differences is Bernardo’s (2010) extension to Snyder’s hope theory. This author stated that, in conjoint cultures in which there is a contextual sense of self, such as Asian cultures, the influence and the interdependence of others such as the family would be stronger than in disjoint cultures. Thus, his conjoint model of agency assumes that definition and motivational thoughts related to goals are defined interpersonally, not only individually (Bernardo, 2010; Bernardo et al., 2018b). In that sense, he proposed his four-factor locus-of-hope model (one internal and three externals—family, friends and spirituality) loci of hope and it has been verified in various Asian cultural groups (Bernardo & Estrellado, 2014; Bernardo & Nalipay, 2016; Bernardo et al., 2016). Several studies have shown that there is a significant relation between those external loci of hope and well-being indicators in adults, high school and university students (Bernardo, 2015; Bernardo & Estrellado, 2017a, 2017b; Bernardo et al., 2017). However, as Bernardo and Mendoza (2020) said, the locus-of-hope model does not mean that Snyder’s hope theory is not cross-culturally valid; he only argues that it is incomplete because people in different cultures might have different agency (personal or shared) in goal related thoughts. In that sense, using other measures of hope with a broader hope conceptualization would be useful in order to explore hope in a more comprehensive way across different cultures.

Regarding perceived hope, there are only a few cross-cultural comparisons reported to date, with inconclusive results. Krafft and Choubisa (2018) found no significant differences in levels of perceived hope between a sample of Indian and German participants. However, there were significant differences in the levels of perceived hope between Czech and Maltese participants, with the Czech sample showing significant higher levels of perceived hope (Slezackova et al., 2018). Further, a sample of young Indian participants showed significantly higher levels of perceived hope compared to their Spanish counterparts (Flores-Lucas et al., 2018). It is evident that more research on perceived hope is required in cross-cultural contexts.

In relation to other elements of hope, partially related with Bernardo’s (2010) proposal of different loci of hope, Krafft and Walker (2018b) proposed that there are different hope providers and different activities which people do in order to achieve hope, and that those could be different in different cultures. Krafft and Choubisa (2018) and Flores-Lucas et al. (2018) found significant differences between German and Indian samples regarding hope providers and hope activities, and between German, Indian and Spanish young people regarding hope providers respectively.

Therefore, we consider it relevant to analyze in depth the possible cross-cultural commonalities and differences in a more global way and assess hope using the PHS, as well as the DHS. We also deem it important to explore possible cross-cultural differences in hope providers or hope activities. This will enable us to obtain a more comprehensive understanding of hope across cultures and the multidimensional nature of the concept of hope.

8.3.2 Cross-Cultural Research on Flourishing

Numerous studies have pointed out the positive impact of flourishing on individuals. In this sense, flourishing people report healthier relationships, higher levels of life satisfaction or greater job satisfaction, among other benefits (i.e., Keyes, 2004; Seligman, 2011). However, to date, the study of flourishing across nations has received less attention. Some research has attempted to clarify the effect of flourishing variability by comparing different countries.

A recent line of cross-cultural research on flourishing has focused on determining its impact in populations as well as exploring differences among them through diverse perspectives. For example, some studies have focused on cross-culturally testing theoretical models on flourishing and making comparisons between the levels of flourishing between different countries. In this vein, Huppert and So (2013) proposed a conceptual delimitation of flourishing through the combination of a series of indicators linked to well-being such as competence, optimism, or emotional stability, among others. Subsequently, they analyzed flourishing in 22 European countries, which were divided into 3 regions: Northern Europe, Southern/Western Europe and Eastern Europe. The results showed a high consistency between regions, as well as differences between countries, regarding both the prevalence of flourishing and characteristics that defined it. In general, the Nordic countries showed the highest levels of flourishing while the Eastern countries showed the lowest. In a similar line, and employing a sample composed of US, Sri Lankan, Cambodian, Chinese and Mexican participants, Wȩziak-Białowolska et al. (2019) observed differences between cultures on the different dimensions of flourishing analysed. Specifically, Chinese participants showed high levels in flourishing social relations and health dimensions, Cambodian individuals in satisfaction with life and characters and virtues and the Mexican population on purpose in life. Regarding their levels on the flourishing index, Cambodian and Chinese participants scored highest, followed by Mexicans, whereas the US and Sri Lankan samples obtained the lowest scores. Santini et al. (2020) also reported differences in flourishing between Canadian, Danish and Dutch samples. In particular, they found higher prevalence rates of flourishing for Canadians, followed by Danish and Dutch individuals. It is evident that more research is needed in order to expand knowledge of cross-cultural differences associated with flourishing.

Surprisingly, to the best of our knowledge, there is a lack of research on the relationship between hope and flourishing across cultures. To address this gap, we intended to examine the role of hope, conceptualized as perceived hope as well as dispositional hope, and flourishing across two different countries: Spain and South Africa, a European country, and an African country.

8.4 Hope and Flourishing in Spain and South Africa

South Africa and Spain are two countries that share some characteristics, but they are also quite different on various levels. Despite the fact that both have a European heritage, there are also several cultural and ethnic differences, which may contribute to differences in hope and flourishing.

8.4.1 The South African Context

South Africa is a multicultural country with four main ethnic groups. A total of 80. 9% of the population is of African ethnicity. The remaining three population groups are Coloured (8.8%), White (7.8%) and Indian (2.5%). The term “coloured” is officially used in the South African census and refers to individuals from mixed-race ancestry (IndexMundi, 2020). It is also a reasonably young democracy, with the first democratic elections involving all South Africans taking place in 1994. However, after 27 years the majority of the population remains less affluent than the minority white group (Adams et al., 2016). There are consistent concerns about the political and economic situation (Guse, 2018), further fuelled by an unemployment rate of 26.6%, which temporarily reached 30% during 2020 (Statistics South Africa, 2018, 2020). In sum, South Africa is an unequal society, which has implications for people’s hopes, expectations and well-being.

Research on hope and flourishing in the South African context is only starting to emerge. Existing studies revealed relatively high levels of dispositional and perceived hope among adults (Guse, 2018; Guse & Shaw, 2018; Guse & van Zyl, 2019; Slezackova et al., 2021). However, these findings should be interpreted with caution, as some studies question the validity of existing hope measures in African contexts (Abler et al., 2017; Hansen et al., 2020). In addition, social class and perceived social standing seem to be associated with lower levels of hope among South Africans (Boyce & Harris, 2013).

In terms of flourishing, several studies examined levels of optimal functioning or flourishing among South African adults and adolescents. Most research conceptualized flourishing using Keyes’ (2002, 2005) model of the mental health continuum. Existing cross-cultural studies reported that a South African sample showed higher levels of social and psychological well-being in comparison to samples from the Netherlands and Iran (Joshanloo et al., 2013).

Studies using the Flourishing Scale (Diener et al., 2010) reported mean scores reflecting relatively high levels of flourishing (Coetzee & Oosthuizen, 2017; Mason, 2019; Nel, 2019). However, these studies were mainly conducted in work contexts or among university students and more research is needed in community samples. Research on the dynamics between hope and flourishing in the South African context indicated that higher levels of hope are associated with higher levels of flourishing or well-being (Guse & Shaw, 2018; Guse & Vermaak, 2011). Still, more research among adults is needed to confirm these findings.

8.4.2 The Spanish Context

Spain is a country with different autonomous regions; some of them have their own language in addition to Castilian (Spanish), and their own cultural heritage. However, there are also wide communal roots, history, and culture. Spain has been receiving an increasing number of people from other countries in recent years. In fact, since the turn of the century, Spain has experienced great social change due to massive immigration (Del Pueblo, 2019). According the 2020 report on immigration by the governmental Permanent Immigration Observatory (2020), the number of legal immigrants was 5,800,468 people in December of 2020, most of them (61%) from European Union Countries. Most of the migrants from countries not in the EU come from Morocco, China, Venezuela and Ecuador. This is a significant change, not only in terms of the number of migrants, but also qualitatively in terms of cultural and social diversity that it has generated (Del Pueblo, 2019).

The economic situation is relatively good, but unemployment in Spain is higher in comparison with other countries of the EU. In 2020, unemployment stood at 15.5%, although it is more severe among young people: in the population under 25 years old unemployment rose to 38.3% by the end of that year according to the data from the National Statistics Institute (INE, 2020a). In sum, Spain is a relatively culturally diverse country, economically developed but with a high rate of unemployment and increasing levels of poverty and inequality and with growing disaffection towards and lack of trust in politicians.

Regarding the research into hope in Spain, as far as we know there are very few studies on the subject. It is of growing interest among researchers in positive psychology, but research into hope is still scarce. Some studies among adolescents indicated that hope is associated with a better self-perception of general health (Esteban-Gonzalo et al., 2020). Furthermore, few recent studies have related hope with resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic, but results were inconclusive (Robles-Bello et al., 2020). There is also some evidence of hope as a predictor of quality of life among the Spanish population (Flores-Lucas & Martínez-Sinovas, 2019). There are even fewer cross-cultural hope studies of Spain and other countries. In our previous study, Flores-Lucas et al. (2018), we found some subtle differences in sources of hope (providers) between Spanish, Indian and German university students, and, more interestingly, we did not find differences in dispositional hope. However, we found significant differences in perceived hope between Indian and Spanish students: in our samples, Spanish students had significantly lower levels of perceived hope than Indian students. However, the limited number of studies and the limitations of these studies, like our cross-cultural study, obliged us to be cautions with our conclusions and engage in more research among Spanish participants as well as cross-cultural comparisons.

Regarding flourishing, Huppert and So (2013) compared 22 European countries, including Spain, on a flourishing scale, which combined multiple positive features. Spain was in 13th position of 22 on global flourishing criteria, above Portugal and France, for example, and below countries like Cyprus, Belgium, and Germany. However, the most striking feature was that Spain showed extreme variations from highest to lowest scores throughout the different features, being one of the countries with more extreme variability along with France and Bulgaria. Regarding the different features assessed in this flourishing survey, Spain is the country with the highest scores in self-esteem and the country with the lowest scores in competence and vitality.

As there are limited studies on hope among Spanish adults, we cannot yet draw conclusions about the dynamics of hope and flourishing in the Spanish context. Thus, more research is warranted.

8.4.3 Rationale for Comparing South Africa and Spain on Hope and Flourishing

Although Spain and South Africa are two countries that share not only some characteristics but also a European heritage, they are also very different. Despite the fact that both have a European heritage as common ground, they are culturally different. Spain, although a European country, differs from North European countries, as it has a Mediterranean culture with some particular characteristics that set it apart from Northern European countries. However, the European heritage of South Africa comes from Northern European countries. Thus, both countries also differ in areas of their common European heritage. They further differ in terms of age of the population, language, geography, and social and political indicators. For example, where Spain is a more homogenous country in terms of language (even though there are four official languages which are spoken in specific regions), South Africa has 11 official languages spoken by four main population groups. South Africa also has a very young population, with a median age of 28 years, while in Spain it is 43.9 years (IndexMundi, 2020). Spain is about half of the size of South Africa, but has almost the same size of population, which means it has a higher population density (My life elsewhere, n.d.). In terms of economy and quality of life, Spain yielded higher scores in most of the economic indicators (GDP, GDP per capita, unemployment, etc.) (countryeconomy.com, n.d.). Furthermore, the countries differ in terms of the United Nations’ Human Development Index (which measures life expectancy, education and income) with South Africa scoring lower than Spain. South Africa has also worse indicators for inequality and human security (such as murder and suicide rates, UNDP, 2020).

Comparing South Africa and Spain could also be understood using Hofstede’s (2001) cultural dimensions. The countries share some common features, for example, both countries have high scores on the dimension of power distance, so they accept a hierarchical society. Both are also seen as individualistic societies (although in the South African context this may only be true for the White population group). However, there were contradictory findings: Minkov et al. (2017) reported Spain to be a more individualistic country than South Africa, while Hofstede (2001) reported the opposite. Moreover, in comparison to other Europeans countries (except Portugal), Spain is a more collectivist country (Hofstede, 2001; Hofstede, n.d.). However, while there are inconsistent findings regarding dimensions of collectivism-individualism in the two countries, it is evident that they may differ to some extent.

Spain and South Africa also seem to differ on the dimension of uncertainty avoidance and pessimism, with Spain scoring much higher in this aspect. On the other hand, Spain scored lower on masculinity and indulgence. This means that Spanish people have a great aversion to uncertainty, which generates a great deal of anxiety. They need rules for everything, even when they are obliged break them if they make life more difficult. Regarding masculinity, Spanish society is not driven by achievement or competition. Spain is less competitive and looks for more cooperation and balance. Spanish people do not like excessive competitiveness and they do not have a conception of success defined by being a winner or the best in the field. Finally, Spain is a restrained society, which is related to a pessimistic view of the life and the future. Spanish people feel that their actions are restrained by social norms and that self-indulgence is a bad thing (Hofstede, 2001; Hofstede, n.d.). We believe that comparing hope and flourishing among samples from South Africa and Spain could contribute to cross-cultural understanding of these positive psychological characteristics.

8.5 The Current Study

The broad research goal of our research is to examine possible differences in hope between South African and Spanish samples and to explore the role of perceived hope in flourishing in these countries.

The specific research aims are:

  1. 1.

    To examine the significance of differences in hope and flourishing between a sample of South African and Spanish adults.

  2. 2.

    To identify the most important sources of hope, as reflected in activities that generate hope, for the two samples.

  3. 3.

    To examine the predictive power of these hope activities in explaining perceived hope for the two samples.

  4. 4.

    To examine the predictive power of hope in explaining flourishing in the two samples.

  5. 5.

    To analyze the predictive power of demographic variables in explaining hope and flourishing in the two samples.

8.6 Methods and Measurements

8.6.1 Participants

Our sample consisted of 206 adults from the general population, of which 100 were South African and 106 were Spanish. The mean age of the participants was 39.58 (SD = 13.29) years for the Spanish sample and 42.65 (SD = 13.57) years for the South African sample. The majority of the participants in both samples were female, namely 79 (74,5%) of the Spanish sample and 81 (81%) of the South African sample. The samples were equivalent in terms of age (t = 1.637; p = 0.103) and gender (contingency analysis Chi square = 1.243; p = 0.265). Additional sociodemographic variables that were considered for the study are described in Table 8.1 below. The majority of both samples obtained a higher education qualification, held full-time employment, and endorsed a religion.

Table 8.1 Demographic information of all samples
Full size table

8.6.2 Measures

We used the following scales to assess the variables of comparison in this study. The South African sample completed the English versions, while the Spanish sample completed the adapted Spanish versions.

Perceived Hope Scale (PHS)

This is a scale to assess hope, as it is perceived by ordinary people, it is formed by 6 items rated on a Likert scale ranging from 0–5 (where 0 is “strongly disagree” and 5 is “strongly agree”) (Krafft et al., 2019). Validation studies reported Cronbach alpha values of 0.87–0.94 (Krafft et al., 2019, 2021; Marujo et al., 2021). In the current study the Cronbach alpha values were 0.89 and 0.86 for the South African and Spanish samples, respectively.

Adult Dispositional Hope Scale (DHS)

This scale assesses hope according Snyder’s hope model. It has eight items and two subscales: Agency thinking and Pathways thinking (Snyder et al., 1991). Items are scored on a 6-point Likert scale with an answer 0–5 rank (where 0 “is strongly disagree” and 5 is “strongly agree”). The DHS has been implemented in many international studies and demonstrated acceptable reliability indices (Krafft et al., 2021). The Cronbach alpha value for the overall DHS ranged from 0.74 to 0.84; from 0.71 to 0.76 for the Agency subscale, and from 0.63 to 0.80 for the Pathways subscale (Snyder et al., 1991). In the current study, the Cronbach alpha values were 0.82 for the overall DHS score for both samples, for the Agency scale 0.71 and 0.68 for the South African and Spanish samples respectively and for Pathways subscale, 0.82 for both samples.

Flourishing Scale

This scale assesses positive human functioning or flourishing. It is an eight-item scale, and 7-point answer Likert scale with a rank of answers from 0 to 7 (where 0 is “strongly disagree” and 7 is “strongly agree”) (Diener et al., 2010). The reported Cronbach alpha value was 0.87. In our samples, the Cronbach alpha values were 0.87 for the South African sample and 0.86 for the Spanish sample.

Additionally, we also used 13 questions to obtain information about the activities that people engage in to fulfil their hopes and to attain the hoped-for targets (Hope activities) with a Likert scale of 4 points with an answer rank from 0 (not at all) to 3 (very often). These questions are classified in four dimensions: Cognitive-rational dimension; Social-relational dimension; Spiritual-religious dimension, and motivational/agency dimension (Krafft & Walker, 2018a). Additionally, we obtained sociodemographic information such as educational level, marital status, and employment status, among others.

8.6.3 Procedure

Our study is a cross-sectional international survey and is part of the International Hope Barometer Survey, as described by Krafft in an earlier chapter in this book. Data collection took place in November 2018. Data were obtained by distributing the survey through different communication media (social networks, webpages, radio stations, email, etc.) in order to get the widest variety of participants in the samples. Participants completed the survey anonymously online.

8.6.4 Ethical Considerations

Participants voluntarily participated in the study and were informed of the aims of the study and the confidential treatment of the data; thus, the study was in accordance with the principles of the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later addenda.

8.6.5 Data Analysis

We used the Mplus 8.6 software to conduct the invariance analysis of the Perceived Hope Scale between the two samples in order to check the viability of making meaningful comparisons between the two samples using this scale. Additionally, we used the SPSS statistical package version 23 to calculate descriptive statistics and perform additional analyses. First, we calculated the descriptive statistics of the sociodemographic characteristics of the sample to describe the two samples. In order to analyse the possible differences between the two samples on the main variables, we conducted a T-test mean differences analysis. Additionally, to identify the most important sources of hope, we ranked the relevance that participants gave to the different hope activities using the mean scores. To analyse the possible differences in the relevance given to those activities between the two samples, we used a T-test comparison analysis. Finally, in order to examine the predictive power of the main variables in perceived hope and flourishing in each sample we used a bivariate correlational analysis and later a stepwise multiple regression analysis.

8.7 Results

8.7.1 Invariance Analysis

As a first step before carrying out the rest of the analyses, we checked the measurement invariance of the Perceived Hope Scale (PHS) to test that data from both samples were comparable. To do that, we applied confirmatory factor analysis in a stepwise incremental manner, moving from configurational invariance to scalar invariance, which is considered the most restricted model to obtain invariance between samples. In this case, we used the Maximum Likelihood Method (MLR estimator) as well as the following indices: Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Tucker Lewis Index (TLI) and Standardized Root Mean Residual (SRMR).

First, we applied a Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) to the total sample. As can be seen in Table 8.2, fix indices for the one-factor model showed a good model fit (RMSEA and SRMR values lower than 0.08 and CFI and TLI values higher than 0.90). Second, after confirming the structure of the scale, we checked the configural, metric, and scalar invariance between the Spanish and South African samples (see Table 8.2). Results did no show statistically significant differences in the model fit between the configural and the metric models (p = 0.20), the metric and the scalar models (p = 0.07), and the configural and the scalar model (p = 0.07).

Table 8.2 Measurement invariance of the perceived Hope scale among Spanish and South African samples
Full size table

In addition, and similar to the total sample, the equal form (configurational invariance) provided an adequate fit (see Table 8.2). Furthermore, employing the configural model as baseline, and following the recommended threshold values (Chen, 2007) to test the measurement invariance, we observed, except for the SRMR parameter, an acceptable goodness of fit indices for metric invariance (Δ RMSEA = 0.005; Δ CFI = 0.004; ΔTLI =  − 0.004; ΔSRMR=−0.047) and for scalar invariance (Δ RMSEA = 0.002; Δ CFI = 0.012; ΔTLI =  − 0.002; ΔSRMR =  − 0.055). Therefore, in general, our data showed strong measurement invariance between Spanish and South African populations for the Perceived Hope Scale.

8.7.2 Mean Differences in Levels of Hope and Flourishing Between the Two Samples

As reflected in Table 8.3, there were statistically significant differences between the South African and Spanish samples in hope. Specifically, the South African sample showed significantly higher levels of perceived hope (p = 0.04) and dispositional hope (p < 0.001). However, the effect size for perceived hope was small (d = 0.28) and medium for dispositional hope (d = 0.53). The difference in flourishing between the two samples was not significant.

Table 8.3 Means, standard deviations and t-tests of Hope and flourishing variables for South African and Spanish samples
Full size table

8.7.3 Mean Values and Rank Orders for Hope Activities Among the Two Samples

In Table 8.4 we report on the most important sources of hope, i.e., the activities that people engage in to generate hope.

Table 8.4 Mean values, rank orders and t-test for hope activities for the South African and Spanish samples
Full size table

For both samples, the three most important hope-generating activities were similar, although slightly different in rank order. There were statistically significant differences in the mean scores for endorsing specific hope-generating activities between the two samples. Specifically, the South African sample showed statistically significant higher scores for the following activities: “I pray, meditate” (t(204) = 8.057; p < 0.001; IC95% [0.856; 1.410]), “I take responsibility and commit myself” (t(186,192) = 3.809; p < 0.001; IC95% [0.123; 0.388]), “I go to church/other place of worship” (t(178,095) = 5.951; p < 0.001; IC95% [0.605; 1.206]), “I donate money to the object of my hopes” (t(204) = 4.236; p < 0.001; IC95% [0.293; .802]), “I trust in God” (t(204) = 8.275; p < 0.001; IC95% [0.944; 1.534]) and “I talk about my hopes with my spouse/partner” (t(200,761) = 3.668; p < 0.001; IC95% [0.239; 0.794]). Large effect sizes were evident for “I pray, meditate” (d = 0.978) and “I trust in God” (d = 1.002); medium effect sizes were discovered for “I take responsibility and commit myself” (d = 0.518), “I go to church/other place of worship” (d = 0.778) and “I donate money to the object of my hopes” (d = 0.570); and small effect size was observed for “I talk about my hopes with my spouse/partner” (d = 0.497).

8.8 Predictors of Perceived Hope

Correlational analysis and multiple linear regression analyses were carried out to study the predictive power of hope activities and sociodemographic variables on perceived hope.

8.8.1 Hope Activities as Predictors of Perceived Hope

The correlational analysis showed some statistically significant relationships for: “I pray, meditate” (r = 0.342; p < 0.001), “I go to church/other place of worship” (r = 0.298; p = 0.001) and “I have a job that allows me to fulfil my hopes” (r = 0.310; p = 0.001) for the South African sample. In the Spanish sample, the hope activities that significantly correlated with perceived hope were: “I motivate my friends” (r = 0.249; p = 0.005), “I go to church/other place of worship” (r = 0.279; p = 0.002), “I have a job that allows me to fulfil my hopes” (r = 0.426; p < 0.001), “I save money” (r = 0.315; p = 0.001), “I trust in God” (r = 0.300; p = 0.001) and “I talk about my hopes with my spouse/partner” (r = 0.271; p = 0.002).

The stepwise multiple regression analysis showed that, in the South African sample, perceived hope was predicted through the following hope activities (see Table 8.5): “I pray, meditate” (beta = 0.274; p = 0.004), “I talk about my hopes with spouses/partner” (beta = 0.217; p = 0.018) and “I have a job that allows me to fulfil my hopes” (beta = 0.224; p = 0.019). The regression model for the South African sample was significant [F (3) = 8.865; p < 0.001] and explained 21.7% of the variance of perceived hope (R = 0.466; R2 = 0.217; R2 adjusted = 0.192). In the Spanish sample (see Table 8.6), the hope activities that were significant predictors of the perception of hope were: “I have a job that allows me to fulfil my hopes” (beta = 0.364; p < 0.001), “I trust in God” (beta = 0.221; p = 0.012) and “I motivate my friends” (beta = 0.191; p = 0.027). The model was significant [F (3) = 12.516; p < 0.001] and explained 26.9% of the variance of perceived hope (R = 0.519; R2 = 0.269; R2 adjusted = 0.248).

Table 8.5 Hope activities as predictors of perceived Hope for the South African sample
Full size table
Table 8.6 Hope activities as predictors of perceived Hope for the Spanish sample
Full size table

8.8.2 Sociodemographic Predictors of Perceived Hope

Demographic characteristics of the participants were previously presented in Table 8.1. Here, we present the findings from the regression analyses.

The correlational analysis showed the following significant differences in correlations with perceived hope: For the South African sample it was gender (r = 0.171; p = 0.045) and for the Spanish sample they were age (r = 0.236; p = 0.007), religion (r = −0.169; p = 0.042) and main activity (r = 0.205; p = 0.017).

Regarding the predictive power of sociodemographic variables (age, gender, family status, education level and professional status, main activity, and religion) in hope, we did not find any predictive significant regression model for the South African sample. Regarding the Spanish sample, age (beta = 0.236; p = 0.015) was the only significant predictor in the multiple linear regression analysis (see Table 8.7). This regression model was significant [F (1) = 6.119; p < 0.05] and explained 5.6% of the variance of perceived hope (R = 0.236; R2 = 0.056; R2 adjusted = 0.046).

Table 8.7 Sociodemographic predictors of perceived hope for the Spanish sample
Full size table

8.8.3 Perceived Hope and Dispositional Hope as Predictors of Flourishing

In order to analyse the predictive power of Perceived Hope and Dispositional Hope on Flourishing, we firstly carried out bivariate correlations which showed strong positive relationships between all variables (see Tables 8.8 and 8.9).

Table 8.8 Bivariate correlations among flourishing and hope variables for the South African sample
Full size table
Table 8.9 Bivariate correlations among flourishing and hope variables for the Spanish sample
Full size table

In a second step, we did linear regression analyses for both samples. For the South African sample (see Table 8.10), flourishing was strongly predicted by perceived hope (beta = 0.505; p < 0.001) and moderately predicted by agency (beta = 0.312; p < 0.001). Dispositional hope and pathways were no predictors for flourishing. The linear regression model for the South African sample was significant [F (2) = 42.982; p < 0.001] and explained 47% of the variance of flourishing (R = 0.685; R2 = 0.470; R2 adjusted = 0.459).

Table 8.10 Predictors of flourishing for the South African sample
Full size table

The multiple linear regression analysis for the Spanish sample (see Table 8.11) identified agency (beta = 0.443; p < 0.001) and perceived hope (beta = 0.305; p < 0.001) as predictors of flourishing. For this sample, dispositional hope and pathways variables were not found as significant predictors for flourishing. The model was significant [F (2) = 40.868; p < 0.001] and explained 44% of the variance of flourishing (R = 0.655; R2 = 0.442; R2 adjusted = 0.432).

Table 8.11 Predictors of flourishing for the Spanish sample
Full size table

8.8.4 Sociodemographic Variables as Predictors of Flourishing

For the South African sample (see Table 8.12), the multiple stepwise regression analysis showed that education level was the only predictor of flourishing (beta = 0.224; p = 0.025). This regression model was significant [F (1) = 5.163; p = 0.025] and explained 5% of the variance (R = 0.224; R2 = 0.050; R2 adjusted = 0.040). For the Spanish sample (see Table 8.13) the only predictor of flourishing was professional status (beta = 0.236; p = 0.015). The model was significant [F (1) = 5.847; p = 0.015] and explained 5.3% of the variance of flourishing (R = 0.231; R2 = 0.053; R2 adjusted = 0.044).

Table 8.12 Sociodemographic variables as predictors of flourishing for the South African sample
Full size table
Table 8.13 Sociodemographic variables as predictors of flourishing for the Spanish sample
Full size table

8.9 Discussion

The main aim of our study was to examine and compare hope and flourishing between South African and Spanish adults. We first examined the measurement invariance of the Perceived Hope Scale (PHS) in order to engage in meaningful comparisons between the two groups. Our results showed that the PHS met the invariance criteria and that we could continue to compare the two samples with this scale.

The first research aim was to investigate the significance of differences in perceived hope, dispositional hope and flourishing between the two samples. Our results showed that the South African sample showed a significantly higher level of perceived hope than the Spanish sample but with a small effect size. Similarly, the South African sample showed higher levels of dispositional hope than the Spanish sample. These results are concordant with previous studies indicating that Spanish young people showed significantly lower levels of perceived hope than Indian young people, but not different from German young people (Flores-Lucas et al., 2018). Similarly, Slezackova et al. (2021) found that a South African sample scored significantly higher on perceived hope than a Czech sample. Thus, despite the fact that South Africa is a developing country and economically less advantaged than Spain, the sample in this study was more hopeful than the Spanish sample. Some reasons for these differences in hope may be offered.

Overall, we can consider cultural differences between the two countries in terms of Hofstede’s (2001) dimensions of culture. According to Hofstede (2001), South Africa scored low on the dimension of uncertainty avoidance, whereas Spain scored high. This means that South African culture is more relaxed, flexible, and tolerant of ambiguity, while Spanish culture seems to prefer rules and are concerned about undefined situations (Hofstede, n.d.). Research suggests that higher levels of hope are associated with a higher tolerance for uncertainty (Balen & Merluzzi, 2021; Sancam et al., 2020) which could partly explain the higher mean hope score for the South African sample. Another dimension of culture which could be considered is that of indulgence. This dimension is broadly defined as the extent to which individuals control their impulses, based on their upbringing. According to Hofstede’s (2001) survey, South African culture reflects higher endorsement of indulgence, and therefore holds more positive and optimistic attitudes. Conversely, Spanish culture seems to be less indulgent and to have a tendency towards cynicism and pessimism (Hofstede n.d.). Several studies suggest that higher levels of optimism are associated with higher levels of hope (see Krafft et al., 2021 for a recent review). Therefore, the difference in levels of hope between the two samples may also partly be due to the fact that South African culture is generally an optimistic culture. Hofstede’s scores on the dimensions of culture for South Africa was based on research among mostly White adults, as was the sample in the current study. However, findings should be interpreted cautiously as it may not reflect the diversity of cultures in South Africa.

There was no statistically significant difference in mean scores for flourishing between the South African and Spanish samples, which indicates that the two groups experienced similar levels of socio-psychological prosperity, or overall psychological well-being, from a subjective point of view (Diener et al., 2010). This was a surprising finding, given that Spain ranked much higher (36) than South Africa (105) in the 2018 World Happiness Report (WHR) (Sachs et al., 2018). However, the WHR evaluates subjective well-being through a single question, and may not adequately assess other dimensions of well-being such as relationships, self-esteem, purpose, and optimism.

The second research aim was to identify the most important sources of hope, as reflected in activities that generate hope, for the two samples. Although both samples pointed out the same activities as the three most important hope activities, our results indicate that South African and Spanish adults differed significantly in endorsing some activities that generate hope (here referred to as hope activities). There were statistically significantly differences in mean scores for endorsing activities with religious/spiritual dimensions. Specifically, the South African sample was more likely to “trust in God”, “pray; meditate” or “to go to church/other place to worship” as means to generate hope. In addition, the South African sample seem more likely to donate to others as a way to increase hope. Further, the two samples differed in endorsing activities with motivational/agency dimensions, as South African participants were more likely to take responsibility for generating their own hope and to find hope in having a job. On the social-relational dimension of hope activities, South African participants more often indicated that they would talk about their hopes with a spouse. We did not find any significant difference in any items from the cognitive-rational dimension. In terms of overall ranking of activities, both samples indicated that taking responsibility for generating hope themselves was the most important source of hope.

South Africa is a very religious country, with most people considering God important to their lives (Kollamparambil, 2020; Loubser & Kotzé, 2017). It can be expected that South African adults would endorse spiritual/religious activities as very important in generating hope in South African people. Spain is a country in which a majority of people identify themselves as Catholic, but when asked if they practise religious activities like going to church, praying, etc., most Spanish people answer that they do not practise any religious activity (Centre of Sociological Research (CIS), 2018, 2021). Thus, it seems that Spanish people may hold religious beliefs but they do not practise any specific religious activity. This difference between the two countries in their religious activities may explain the differences in the role of these activities in their different levels of perceived hope. In fact, according to a previous study among German and Swiss samples, the activities which have more predictive value on perceived hope were those from religious/spiritual; motivational/agency and relational dimensions (Krafft & Walker, 2018b). This lends some support to our idea that differences in the hope activities found in our study could partially explain the differences in perceived hope found between the two countries.

Further, given the high rate of unemployment in South Africa, having a job may sustain hope and this activity may be more important to South African than Spanish participants. The findings that the South African sample was more likely to talk to a spouse as a hope activity is difficult to explain in a cross-cultural context. Existing research supports the notion that effective communication is key to relationship satisfaction and ultimately well-being in general (see du Plooy & de Beer, 2018, for a review), but it is unclear whether cultural differences between the two samples may have contributed to our findings.

The third aim of our study was to investigate the predictive power of these hope activities in explaining perceived hope for the two samples. The linear multiple regression analysis showed that the strongest hope activities predictors of perceived hope in South African sample were “I pray/meditate”; “I talk about my hopes to my spouse/partner”; and “I have a job that allows me fulfil my hopes”. In the Spanish sample the strongest predictors were “I have a job that allows me fulfil my hopes”; “I trust in God” and “I motivate my friends”. Overall, although there were differences in the specific activities predicting hope for the two samples, for both the South African and Spanish participants these activities entailed motivational/agency, the religious/spiritual and relational dimensions, similar to Krafft and Walker’s (2018b) findings among Swiss and Germans participants. As indicated previously, the fact the spiritual/religious dimension (“I pray/meditate”) was the strongest predictor of perceived hope for the South African sample is in line with the religious nature of South African society (see Loubser & Kotzé, 2017). Because Spanish people consider themselves as believers but do not practise any religious activity, it seems reasonable that for this sample “trust in God” was one of the most powered predictors of hope; but, unlike the South African sample, religious activities like “pray” have no effect on Spanish people’s hope levels.

Further, having a job is extremely important to South Africans owing to difficult economic circumstances and high levels of unemployment. Thus, being employed may support positive future expectancies and consequently perceived hope. This seems similar to the Spanish context, as Spain has one of the highest rates of unemployment among European countries. In fact, the CIS (2018) data showed that the majority of Spanish people viewed unemployment as the main problem of the country. Thus, as in the South African sample, having a job is a powerful predictor of hope and of positive future expectations.

As far as relational sources of hope are concerned, Krafft and Walker (2018b) similarly reported that these activities are very important predictors of perceived hope among Swiss and German samples. For the South African sample in our study, talking to a spouse was one of the strongest predictors and for Spanish people another relational source of hope “I motivate my friends” was a relevant predictor of hope. This is congruent with the consideration of Spain as a very sociable country in which relationships with friends are an important part of the Spanish lifestyle, and thus in line with Krafft and Walker’s (2018b) findings.

The fourth aim of our study was to examine the role of perceived hope and dispositional hope in predicting flourishing in the two samples. Regarding the relationship between perceived hope and flourishing, our regression analysis indicated that perceived hope was a significant predictor of flourishing for both groups. In terms of dispositional hope, only agency was a significant predictor of perceived hope for both samples. The other components of Snyder’s model (global dispositional hope and pathways thinking) were not significant predictors. The only difference between the South African and Spanish regression models were the different prediction values of these variables. Specifically, agency was the strongest predictor of flourishing for the Spanish sample, while we found an inverse pattern for the South African sample. Therefore, our results suggest that flourishing is predicted by the same hope-related variables for participants from these different cultures. However, results should be interpreted with caution because we only confirmed measurement invariance of the PHS between the two samples, and not the DHS. Overall, the results seem to point to the universality of hope as an existential human need that is central to the experience of well-being (see Krafft et al., 2021 for a recent review).

While a large body of existing research reported that dispositional hope is a good predictor of flourishing (Munoz et al., 2020) and specifically of life satisfaction (Diener & Chan, 2011; Gunderman, 2008; Keyes, 2007; Snyder, 1994, 2000; Snyder et al., 1991), our findings seem to indicate the possibility that other conceptualizations of hope could add to understanding flourishing. Specifically, perceived hope contributed to predicting flourishing in both samples in the current study, in addition to only one component of dispositional hope. Our results thus support Krafft et al.’s (2021) finding that perceived hope might be an important underlying factor in understanding well-being, regardless of cultural context.

Finally, regarding our last goal, sociodemographic variables in our data showed that in the South African sample the only predictor in the multiple regression model was the educational level, but in Spain the only predictor was professional status. This difference may be due partially to the fact that in Spain most people below 50 years old have at least high school education level, and a large part of this population has a university degree (National Statistical Institute (INE), 2020b) which could mean that educational level is not a good predictor of flourishing because it is not a good discriminant variable in the Spanish population. In the South African context, university education is still not accessible to the majority of the population partly due socio-economic factors and problematic basic education (Walton et al., 2015). It can thus be expected that educational level would be a strong predictor of flourishing in this context.

Despite potentially valuable findings, we acknowledge some limitations of our study. First, we had a limited number of participants, which may have made it impossible to investigate the measurement invariance of the DHS. Consequently, any comparison between the two samples using this scale has to be taken with caution and further research is needed to confirm our results. Second, in both samples the majority of participants were female, which limits generalization. Finally, the participants in the South African sample were not demographically representative of the South African population, which is predominately Black. The results should therefore not be generalized to the South African population as a whole. However, our study has also some strengths. It is one of the few studies to examine hope and its role in well-being in two different countries, and it is the first between Spain and South Africa. This study also implemented more than one conceptualization of hope and considered the complementarity of both. This is has allowed us to understand and explore in more depth possible cultural differences and communalities in the dynamics of hope and flourishing. Finally, by identifying the important sources of hope for both samples, it provides some guidance for developing interventions to strengthen hope in each cultural context.

8.10 Conclusion

In this study, we found higher levels of hope in a South African sample in comparison to a Spanish sample. We also found that the two samples differed in terms of endorsement of specific hope activities, but that for both samples, spiritual, motivational and relational activities were important predictors of hope. Perceived hope and agency were both significant predictors of flourishing for the two samples. Since perceived hope was a strong predictor of flourishing for both samples, our study supports the notion that perceived hope may be a universal motivational need applicable across cultures. Our results also suggest that, while there may be differences in levels of hope between the South African and Spanish samples, hope remains an important construct in the experience of human flourishing. This adds to extant knowledge on universal and specific characteristics of hope and paves the way for further cross-cultural understanding of this important human need.